CO2 cartridges and flying

Quoted message said:

REMEMBER: CO2 Cartridges are NOT ALLOWED on airlines in either checked bags,
bike cases, or carry-on luggage.

Ok, I got this right off of ironmanarizona's website.

do you buy new cartridges there and give them away before your return
flight?

thanks again for the help!!!!

randy

They are allowed on some, but I'm only talking European. They always
get spotted in my bike box, and 9 times out of 10 the guy knows what
they are before I explain. Never had a problem.

When I bring back cannisters from Germany (v. cheap there) I have to
put them in the hold of my company's aircraft, they are not allowed on
as 'hand baggage'.

Your suggestion sounds the best though, buy 2 or 3 and give 'em
away...that's a good deed done!

--
Mark
_______________________________________
Nerves of Steel, Heart of Gold, Knob of Butter

Last time I was at IM Canada, the Bike Shack charged like $2 for them
and gave you $1 if you returned unopened. I was driving so it wasn't a
big deal.

Leave them with the locals when you go home.

TriRod

RAS said:

REMEMBER: CO2 Cartridges are NOT ALLOWED on airlines in either checked bags,
bike cases, or carry-on luggage.

Ok, I got this right off of ironmanarizona's website.

do you buy new cartridges there and give them away before your return
flight?

thanks again for the help!!!!

randy

Yep, first thing I do is find the closest bike shop and purchase my CO2
cartridges.

Also, I prefer to actually use a small pump to re-inflate my tires
instead of CO2. For me, CO2 is only for emergency purposes if I flat on
the course. I bought the "Topeak Road Morph Bike Pump w/ Gauge" to
inflate the tires after arriving.

--
Bryan Woodruff
Redmond, WA

"RAS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

REMEMBER: CO2 Cartridges are NOT ALLOWED on airlines in either checked bags,
bike cases, or carry-on luggage.

Ok, I got this right off of ironmanarizona's website.

do you buy new cartridges there and give them away before your return
flight?

thanks again for the help!!!!

randy

Well you can't get 'em cheaper than the paintball dept. at Walmart. And
these days all jet plane holds are pressurised so there really isn't
any problem, although it is as pointed out against the rules.

I've heard that people drop their C02 carts down the seat tube and
thats pretty much takes care of any risk of explosion damage and they
don't show up if sanned.

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Hardt said:

Anyway, explosion or not, FAA regulations pretty clearly forbid such things,
I'm not convinced that trying to hid something from Homeland Security is
necessarily the best way to get your stuff to a race. Maybe I'm paranoid,
but seems like getting thrown into some security interrogation room while
your flight heads into the friendly skies and you miss an Ironman mandatory
check-in isn't worth a $2 CO2 cartridge. Just my opinion though. Why don't
you go ahead and give it a shot? Maybe we're in the same age group - I
could use less competition.

Maybe he likes being stripped searched.

--Harold Buck

"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."

-Homer J. Simpson

Harold Buck said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Hardt said:

Anyway, explosion or not, FAA regulations pretty clearly forbid such things,
I'm not convinced that trying to hid something from Homeland Security is
necessarily the best way to get your stuff to a race. Maybe I'm paranoid,
but seems like getting thrown into some security interrogation room while
your flight heads into the friendly skies and you miss an Ironman mandatory
check-in isn't worth a $2 CO2 cartridge. Just my opinion though. Why don't
you go ahead and give it a shot? Maybe we're in the same age group - I
could use less competition.

Maybe he likes being stripped searched.

--Harold Buck

"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."

-Homer J. Simpson

I've flown with them by mistake. They didn't explode. I didn't get strip
searched. Damn, it all could've been so much more fun.

Tam

I've flown maybe 10 times with my bike in its IronCase bike case
with 2 CO2 cartridges attached in their usual place, which is on
the downtube in a special holder where the water bottle cage
would usually go. Have never had a problem, even when I had
to open the case for inspection.

David

<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://www.qbike.com/cgi-bin/rjs.cgi?jid=2&t
ype=pr&show=tri&nbr=4"></script>

Mark (MSA) said:

Quoted message said:

REMEMBER: CO2 Cartridges are NOT ALLOWED on airlines in either checked bags,
bike cases, or carry-on luggage.

Ok, I got this right off of ironmanarizona's website.

do you buy new cartridges there and give them away before your return
flight?

thanks again for the help!!!!

randy

They are allowed on some, but I'm only talking European. They always
get spotted in my bike box, and 9 times out of 10 the guy knows what
they are before I explain. Never had a problem.

When I bring back cannisters from Germany (v. cheap there) I have to
put them in the hold of my company's aircraft, they are not allowed on
as 'hand baggage'.

Your suggestion sounds the best though, buy 2 or 3 and give 'em
away...that's a good deed done!

--
Mark
_______________________________________
Nerves of Steel, Heart of Gold, Knob of Butter

I've flown maybe 10 times with my bike in its IronCase bike case
with 2 CO2 cartridges attached in their usual place, which is on
the downtube in a special holder where the water bottle cage
would usually go. Have never had a problem, even when I had
to open the case for inspection.

David

<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://www.qbike.com/cgi-bin/rjs.cgi?jid=2&type=pr&show=tri&nbr=4"></script>

Mark (MSA) said:

Quoted message said:

REMEMBER: CO2 Cartridges are NOT ALLOWED on airlines in either checked bags,
bike cases, or carry-on luggage.

Ok, I got this right off of ironmanarizona's website.

do you buy new cartridges there and give them away before your return
flight?

thanks again for the help!!!!

randy

They are allowed on some, but I'm only talking European. They always
get spotted in my bike box, and 9 times out of 10 the guy knows what
they are before I explain. Never had a problem.

When I bring back cannisters from Germany (v. cheap there) I have to
put them in the hold of my company's aircraft, they are not allowed on
as 'hand baggage'.

Your suggestion sounds the best though, buy 2 or 3 and give 'em
away...that's a good deed done!

--
Mark
_______________________________________
Nerves of Steel, Heart of Gold, Knob of Butter

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've flown maybe 10 times with my bike in its IronCase bike case
with 2 CO2 cartridges attached in their usual place, which is on
the downtube in a special holder where the water bottle cage
would usually go. Have never had a problem, even when I had
to open the case for inspection.

Then you broke US federal law and the people that did the inspection
failed to do their duty, especially if they saw the CO2 carts. Whe you
check in you are supposed to agree or confirm that you have no items
that are banned on planes by agreed international law. That includes
pressurised canisters, failure to do so can land you in jail for
5-years... that would make one hell of a transition time although would
give you plenty of opportunity to practise your mounts/dismounts...

Here are the North West rules:
http://www.nwa.com/travel/luggage/restricted.html

Now, as I said earlier in this thread... these days the holds of most
planes are pressurised so its not likely to be a problem... but that
doesn't make it ok.

"Mark Cathcart" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Now, as I said earlier in this thread... these days the holds of most
planes are pressurised so its not likely to be a problem... but that
doesn't make it ok.

I doubt very much whether pressurisation makes any significant difference.

Lets see, an 8gm CO2 bulb = 22.4*8/44= about 4L CO2 at STP.

If the cylinder is approx 10cc volume then the internal pressure is 400bar.
Even if the airplane was to fly into outerspace with an unpressurised hold,
the increase in pressure differential would only be a max of 1bar. I rather
suspect that the bulbs have a design tolerance considerably greater than
this.

Of course I've made a number of guesses (and possibly got my sums wrong) but
I still think that a maximum external pressure change of 1 bar is
insignificant in terms of explosion risk.

Tim

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tim Downie said:

"Mark Cathcart" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Now, as I said earlier in this thread... these days the holds of most
planes are pressurised so its not likely to be a problem... but that
doesn't make it ok.

I doubt very much whether pressurisation makes any significant difference.

Lets see, an 8gm CO2 bulb = 22.4*8/44= about 4L CO2 at STP.

If the cylinder is approx 10cc volume then the internal pressure is 400bar.
Even if the airplane was to fly into outerspace with an unpressurised hold,
the increase in pressure differential would only be a max of 1bar. I rather
suspect that the bulbs have a design tolerance considerably greater than
this.

Of course I've made a number of guesses (and possibly got my sums wrong) but
I still think that a maximum external pressure change of 1 bar is
insignificant in terms of explosion risk.

I'm sure if someone explains all that in court, they'll throw out the
charges.

--Harold Buck

"Hubris always wins in the end. The Greeks taught us that."

-Homer J. Simpson

Tim quiet so. Which begs the question why would they have been banned
in the first place?

C02 Carts are explicity listed as a prohibited item rather than listed
in some catch-all of pressurised containers... I assume like most
things related to flying, just becuase it could explode... which when
you are 35,000 ft in the air is a good enough reason.

"Harold Buck" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tim Downie said:

"Mark Cathcart" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Now, as I said earlier in this thread... these days the holds of most
planes are pressurised so its not likely to be a problem... but that
doesn't make it ok.

I doubt very much whether pressurisation makes any significant
difference.

Lets see, an 8gm CO2 bulb = 22.4*8/44= about 4L CO2 at STP.

If the cylinder is approx 10cc volume then the internal pressure is
400bar.
Even if the airplane was to fly into outerspace with an unpressurised
hold,
the increase in pressure differential would only be a max of 1bar. I
rather
suspect that the bulbs have a design tolerance considerably greater than
this.

Of course I've made a number of guesses (and possibly got my sums wrong)
but
I still think that a maximum external pressure change of 1 bar is
insignificant in terms of explosion risk.

I'm sure if someone explains all that in court, they'll throw out the
charges.

Anyone here remember Value Jet flight 592?

A DC-9 crashed in the everglades in 1996 because some oxygen canisters were
transported illegally onboard, leaked, and caught fire in the cargo hold.
So, Tim, if you forgive me I'd rather not take your advice as to what is
safe and what isn't.

John

John Hardt said:

Anyone here remember Value Jet flight 592?

A DC-9 crashed in the everglades in 1996 because some oxygen
canisters were transported illegally onboard, leaked, and caught fire
in the cargo hold. So, Tim, if you forgive me I'd rather not take
your advice as to what is safe and what isn't.

I beg your pardon? I'm afraid I don't see the connection. A leaking O2
cannister is a bazillion miles removed from the risk imposed by a dinky CO2
cylinder. Besides, it was chemical oxygen generators that caused the fire,
not conventional cylinders.

And as you're hard of reading, I never said that CO2 cyclinders were safe,
I was just pointing out that whether the hold is pressurised or not is a
non-issue as far as explosion hazard goes for cylinders. I did *not* say
they were safe.

Tim

Here's the issue, the planes cargo hold is not air conditioned and they
probably store electrical equipment; and other fire hazards may be there.
If you will read your CO2 cartridge it says to not store above 120 F because
what will happen is the gas will expand and the pressure will change much
more rapidly then an increase in altitude. Now if your cartridges happen to
be near a fire that breaks out then BOOM (actually I would assume the
weakest point of the cartridges (the seal) would burst and turn your
cartridge stuffed into you seat tube in to a rocket launcher)! I would
assume this is the real issue.

Sandy

"Mark Cathcart" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tim quiet so. Which begs the question why would they have been banned
in the first place?

C02 Carts are explicity listed as a prohibited item rather than listed
in some catch-all of pressurised containers... I assume like most
things related to flying, just becuase it could explode... which when
you are 35,000 ft in the air is a good enough reason.

Interesting science from Georgia Tech . . . I'm not sure where they've
flown lately, pehaps too close to the sun . . . airplane cargo holds
are very COLD places, and should a fire break out, the least concern is
going to be CO2 cartridges, unless you happened to ship several dozen
cases. Ever notice the "explosion" when you puncture one of these?
Next time you put one into the hand-held nozzle of your inflator and
screw in that cap, notice that nothing really happens. Yes, it's still
under pressure by that silly little cap, but when you depress the
plunger, and gas is released, it works as advertised. No recoil at all
- no back-pressure, not like firing a gun. A leaky seal on a CO2
cartridge is only a hazzard to the person who tries to use it next - it
will be a dud. Pack that same (now empty) CO2 cartridge with match
heads (a propellant) and light it, and you have a real projectile. Why
are they banned? Because the rocket scientist who prepared that
portion of the law probably didn't know the difference beyween CO2 and
O gases. Those leaky oxygen containers on the Air Trans were USED
containers which had been certified as empty, and thus presented a real
hazard because the seals were broken - oxygen is fire fuel. But, the
law is the law, or the law is whatever the President says it is in our
new society.

Georgia Tech News said:

Here's the issue, the planes cargo hold is not air conditioned and they
probably store electrical equipment; and other fire hazards may be there.
If you will read your CO2 cartridge it says to not store above 120 F . . .

"Tim Downie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John Hardt said:

Anyone here remember Value Jet flight 592?

A DC-9 crashed in the everglades in 1996 because some oxygen
canisters were transported illegally onboard, leaked, and caught fire
in the cargo hold. So, Tim, if you forgive me I'd rather not take
your advice as to what is safe and what isn't.

I beg your pardon? I'm afraid I don't see the connection. A leaking O2
cannister is a bazillion miles removed from the risk imposed by a dinky
CO2 cylinder. Besides, it was chemical oxygen generators that caused the
fire, not conventional cylinders.

And as you're hard of reading, I never said that CO2 cyclinders were
safe, I was just pointing out that whether the hold is pressurised or not
is a non-issue as far as explosion hazard goes for cylinders. I did *not*
say they were safe.

Tim

Tim,

The connection? Simple; the connection is that in 1996, someone
rationalized that they THOUGHT a particular item posed no risk. So they
took the situation upon themselves and went ahead and put that item on an
airplane even though it was expressly prohibited by regulations. They were
wrong.

In this thread, someone initially asked whether it was OK to bring CO2
cartridges on a plane or whether they should buy them at the race site.
Several people have responded with various suggestions to get them on a
plane including everything from leaving them in the open and hoping for the
best to actually concealing them in seat tubes. Many of those same people
here - including you - have said in effect, "for the following reasons, CO2
cartridges can't possibly [fill in the blank]". You may not have expressly
said they were safe or unsafe, but it doesn't matter - is the
rationalization that is the problem.

If the people who govern the air travel industry have gone through the
trouble of EXPRESSLY listing CO2 cartridges as something that is BANNED from
airline flights, then the original question is simple: leave the damn things
at home and spend $2 at the race site.

John

John Hardt said:

You may not have expressly said they were safe or
unsafe, but it doesn't matter - is the rationalization that is the
problem.

But it does. I deliberately avoided stating whether they were safe or
unsafe. I was singling out the issue of pressurisation as an added risk.
How you or others choose to interpret that I cannot control.

You accused me of offering unsafe advice which I did not.

Tim

"John Hardt" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:pmqAf.31863$PY6.26907
@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:

Quoted message said:

The connection? Simple; the connection is that in 1996, someone
rationalized that they THOUGHT a particular item posed no risk.

Oxygen generators were known to produce dangerous amount of heat when set
off and if I remember correctly, were not supposed to have been
transported in the manner that they were on that flight. They weren't O2
cannisters, they were chemical packages that generate oxygen (and heat as
a byproduct) when set off. So they ended up with way too much heat and
oxygen together in the hold. You are right in the sense that someone
thought it would be safe regardless of posted policies and procedures,
but the oxygen generators were a known fire threat, which certainly is
not true of CO2 cartridges. The reason CO2 cartridges are banned is that
you could make a nasty little explosive with one and it wouldn't look any
different than a regular CO2 cartridge with the detection devices
currently in use at our airports.

You shouldn't avoid taking CO2 cartidges on a flight because they might
explode, you should avoid it because you might end up in the basement of
the airport with some big dude from the TSA doing a cavity search on you
for weapons and explosives.

The NTSB reporton the Miami crash:

Accident description

Status: Final
Date: 11 MAY 1996
Time: 14:25 ET
Type: McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32
Operator: ValuJet Airlines
Registration: N904VJ
Msn / C/n: 47377/496
Year built: 1969
Total airframe hrs: 68395 hours
Cycles: 80663 cycles
Engines: 2 Pratt & Whitney JT8D-7B
Crew: 5 fatalities / 5 on board
Passengers: 105 fatalities / 105 on board
Total: 110 fatalities / 110 on board
Airplane damage: Written off
Location: Everglades, FL (United States of America)
Phase: En route (ENR)
Nature: Domestic Scheduled Passenger
Departure airport: Miami International Airport, FL (MIA)
Destination airport: Atlanta-William B. Hartsfield International Airport,
GA (ATL)
Flightnumber: 592
Narrative:
ValuJet Flight 592 took off from Miami runway 09L at 14:04 for a flight
to Atlanta. At 14:10, while flying at 10628 feet at 232 knots IAS
(heading 300 ) the altitude dropped 815 feet and the IAS decreased 34
knots in 3 seconds time. From then on, the FDR recorded intermittent data
dropouts.
Shortly thereafter the crew requested to return to Miami due to smoke in
the cockpit. Flight 592 was vectored for a runway 12 approach. At 7207
feet, descending at 260 knots on a 210 heading, the FDR stopped
recording. Fifty seconds later ValuJet 592 struck a swamp with the nose
pitched down 75-80 and disintegrated.
It was concluded that there had been a very intense fire in the middle of
the forward cargo hold, which burned through the cabin floor at seat rows
5 and 6 on the left hand side.
Investigations focus on a fire, possibly caused by oxygen generators
carried in the cargo hold. The aircraft carried boxes containing 144
oxygen canisters and two MD-80 main wheel tires in the forward hold.

PROBABLE CAUSE: "The National Transportation Safety Board determines that
the probable causes of the accident, resulting in a fire in the Class D
cargo compartment from the actuation of one or more oxygen generators
improperly carried as cargo, were: (1) the failure of SabreTech to
properly prepare, package, identify, and track unexpended chemical oxygen
generators before presenting them to ValuJet for carriage; (2) the
failure of ValuJet to properly oversee its contract maintenance program
to ensure compliance with maintenance, maintenance training, and
hazardous materials requirements and practices; and (3) the failure of
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to require smoke detection and fire
suppression systems in Class D cargo compartments.
Contributing to the accident was the failure of the FAA to adequately
monitor ValuJet's heavy maintenance program and responsibilities,
including ValuJet's oversight of its contractors, and SabreTech's repair
station certificate; the failure of the FAA to adequately respond to
prior chemical oxygen generator fires with programs to address the
potential hazards; and the failure of ValuJet to ensure that both ValuJet
and contract maintenance employees were aware of the carrier's no-carry
hazardous materials policy and had received appropriate hazardous
materials training." (NTSB/AAR-97/06)